IN JUNE 2010, months before the assembly elections in Bihar, the BJP decided to hold its national executive meeting in Patna. Although it was meant to be a low-key gathering, posters suddenly appeared across the city announcing the arrival of Narendra Modi, who was then chief minister of Gujarat. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar was visibly irritated. He felt it was an attempt to introduce Modi into Bihar’s political space on the BJP’s terms. To make his displeasure evident, he cancelled a dinner planned for senior BJP leaders at his official residence. He also told reporters who had travelled from Delhi that the publicity surrounding Modi’s visit was “not a proper thing to do”.
The episode captured the political balance of that moment. Nitish, who headed the Janata Dal (United), could determine who campaigned in Bihar, who shared the stage with him, and how far his ally’s national leaders could project themselves in the state.
Almost 16 years later, after many political shifts by Nitish, the irony is difficult to ignore. Modi has now completed nearly 12 years as India’s prime minister. One of the BJP leaders associated with putting up those posters welcoming Modi, Nitin Nabin—then a first-time MLA—has since been chosen as the party’s national president. Nitish himself has decided to step down as chief minister and move to the Rajya Sabha. The move is likely to result in the BJP installing its own chief minister in Bihar for the first time—the only Hindi heartland state that has eluded it so far.
Nitish first came to power in 2005 after defeating the Rashtriya Janata Dal led by Lalu Prasad. Since then, he has shaped the state’s politics through a combination of governance reforms, welfare programmes and careful coalition management. His early years in office focused on restoring basic governance. One initiative in particular came to symbolise his style of politics. The bicycle scheme for schoolgirls encouraged families to send their daughters to school and helped raise female enrolment across the state. Coupled with prohibition, despite its attendant weaknesses, these policies helped create a loyal base among women voters.
JD(U) leader and former minister Neeraj Kumar said the restoration of law and order was the most important change brought about by Nitish. “Law and order became the benchmark by which people judge governance in Bihar during Nitish’s rule, and for any chief minister who may occupy that position.”
Nitish cultivated a political coalition that extended beyond traditional caste alignments. Women voters, sections of the Extremely Backward Classes, and marginalised communities became an important support base. This combination of governance initiatives and social outreach allowed him to remain politically relevant through multiple shifts in alliances.
The Bihar that Nitish leaves behind has undergone significant social and political change over the past two decades. Unlike many Hindi heartland states, Bihar’s politics has followed a distinct trajectory. Since the rise of Lalu Prasad in 1990, the state’s direction has been shaped largely by regional leaders rather than direct intervention from national figures. Both Lalu, and later Nitish consciously limited the influence of central leadership. That equation, however, may now shift, particularly if the BJP’s “double-engine” governance model gains ground.
BJP national spokesperson Guru Prakash said the leadership question in Bihar would be decided collectively within the ruling alliance. Yet, Nitish’s departure creates uncertainty for the JD(U), the party he built over decades. Without his authority, it faces the challenge of preserving both its identity and organisational discipline.
Party leaders insist the structure remains intact. Neeraj Kumar argued that even when senior figures left in the past, the cadre base stayed loyal. Much, however, will depend on Nitish’s son, Nishant Kumar. Unlike many political heirs, his entry was not publicly cultivated over time. His ability to engage with workers and take independent decisions will be crucial in determining whether he can hold the party together.
At 50, Nishant enters politics relatively late in a field dominated by established political families. His emergence invites inevitable comparisons with Lalu’s son Tejashwi Yadav, who has spent years building his political profile. Observers see this as a defining test of Nishant’s leadership and his ability to carry forward his father’s legacy. Failure to establish authority could prompt sections of the party to seek more secure political alignments.
Bihar’s political structure itself presents challenges. Its deeply layered caste dynamics, with numerous communities and sub-castes, make broad-based consolidation difficult. Unlike in Uttar Pradesh, where religious identity has at times enabled wider mobilisation, Bihar’s electoral behaviour often reflects localised social alliances. This complexity limits the scope for uniform ideological consolidation.
Nitish’s exit may also signal the gradual erosion of the socialist tradition that long defined the state’s politics. While such politics has declined elsewhere, Bihar remained one of its last strongholds. With the BJP seeking to expand its ideological footprint, the shift away from Mandal-era politics may accelerate. This transition comes at a crucial time, with elections approaching in states hosting large migrant populations from Bihar. These communities continue to follow developments in their home state closely, making them an increasingly important audience for political messaging.